About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 6
CSPAN2 4
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
LANGUAGE
English 17
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
. but the second point i think our first of all the pentagon didn't show you any video. that's bad puerto rico. and the percentage of the weapons that were smart weapons and the first gulf war more than anything the iraqis had was remarkably small compared to the impression the pentagon gave in their military briefings where the only showed pictures of smart bombs and missiles and things flying through windows. there was a very tiny percentage of the actions actually expended. so i don't think that this was so much a revolution of military affairs as a vivid demonstration as you pointed out on just how proficient the united states was in waging a war especially against a less proficient adversary but it was a more philosophical way and that is and the ultimate goal of the conflict was a political goal so there for the military planning involves both smart and some weapons and they were designed with a traditional military conclusion which in truth wasn't revolutionary at all which was getting the enemy to do what we wanted. so i can't see the revolutionary military affairs. i am getting a sign
to be running the pentagon. >> sam? >> well, i slightly disagree with robert. >> i thought you might. >> you know, actually it's funny because some of these questions did produce interesting, illustrative answers. for instance, when ron johnson got hillary clinton to say what difference does it make? well, it does make a difference. the problem i found with the questions was they ended up stepping on the news. they became so demonstrative and so theatrical that they ended up stealing the spotlight from the answers. that did a disservice in some respects to the question. >> is the real story the feeder of the questions or hagel's fumbling performance? i think it's the latter. i think hagel had a dismal performance at that hearing. did he seem competent to run the pentagon? there were a lot of questions even among democrats after that hearing whether he's ready. >> i don't disagree with that. i think hagel had a really poor performance. what i'm saying is for these senators -- if you looked at what ted cruz was asking about, association with an israeli diplomat that basically 99.9% of the coun
alv vast network of oldot colleagues throughout the pentagon bureaucracy. he's reaching out to them.s he deliberately forms a back v channel. he cultivates this woman in the white house named megyn to o'sullivan who is president bush's every chief adviser in the national security council. he sees she's kind of wavering. l security council and seized she is wavering and they're talking on the phone practically every day. this is outrageous. a three-star general from fort wet weather worsened talking on the phone every day with the senior advisor to the president of the united states general casey you is a four-star general commanding troops he says we only need one more brigade so those are arguments why it isn't enough so when it comes, by the way it is not paula bridewell but strictly professional. but subverting the chain of command he always has been off the reservation guy to do what is necessary here but at the same time a civilian analyst used to teach history he rode a steady advocating the surge at the american enterprise institute. said to get this into the warehouse into t
secretary in a private ceremony with family members and immediate office staff at the pentagon. he later spoke to folks at the pentagon. we'll show that to you later in our program schedule. the supreme court today heard testimony in a case regarding the voting rights act of 1965. "the new york times" reporting on the oral argument today saying a central provision of that voting rights act could be in peril judging from rough or tough questioning today from the supreme court's more conservative members. they write that the law, a landmark achievement of the civil era, was challenged by shelby county, alabama, which said the requirement outlived its usefulness. we spoke about the oral argument today on "washington journal." host: the supreme court hears a case about the voting rights act today and here to talk about with us is ari berman, contributing righter at the nation. and hang von, at the heritage foundation, thank you to you. before we get into the specifics what the supreme court is hearing today,ary, tell us about the voting rights act and its history. >> it was put into place be
at the pentagon and military readiness and what that will mean. >> he is at the pentagon now moments away from being sworn in. it could be kathleen seb i will sibilius. chuck hagel has my money. i will be there. if it's not chuck hagel, i will walk out. >> in protest? >> yeah. we wanted hagel. what's going on? >> quick story, public policy poling who we know ppp polled. they did a very, very important study, bill. they polled democrats and republicans to find out who their favorite fried chicken restaurant was. and they put it up against kfc. >> yeah. >> and chick-fil-a. >> popeye's. >> they just put it betweenthies two. i am with you. i say popeye's. popeye's keeps it real but kfc and democrats. democrats perform kfc while 48% of republicans chose chick-fil-a. >> of course. they are homophobic anti-marriage equality. >> exactly. what i found even more interesting out of this pole pole se /* /* poll, 43% of republicans say the nasty it al y'all food restaurant is quote a quality source of authenticethnic food. 43% of republicans say olive guardn is a quali
the pentagon and military posts have strong seasoned leadership teams. regardless of having the secretary or not having one is a portent concern. -- a point of concern. you have a good strong team that will be able to manage through this process. they have seen this coming. as you would expect the military to do, they are prepared. host: new hampshire, and the pennant caller -- caller: morning and thank you. i am so tired of the irresponsibility of the republicans. the chuck hagel thing is preposterous. how does it serve the nation to delay the president's choice? it is the first time in history that a filibuster has been used against a cabinet the sequester is the height of irresponsibility. why risk a potential double dip recession just so you can score political points? finally, you criticized the president for being out of washington and yet, -- that was and finally -- hear you are supporting a filibuster and finally, though you partly answer the question or just now, what your district and tails are large installations, i assume, other than fort campbell in your district. my brother
. at the challenge the people currently at the pentagon are facing. host: fredericksburg, virginia, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. there's nothing worse than a great secretary and nothing better than a wonderful one. most of the individuals who work for our government appear not to have the wherewithal to know exactly what to do and appear to be on training wheels while they are learning. we the taxpayer take the brunt of everything. while you are a very unstudied lady and are only given the credentials you have having a report card to show who you are, this individual appears to be a floater guest: i think that is unfair. he has done a number of things throughout his career. he is not only a senator, but he was a deputy administrator at the department of veterans affairs. that is a massive responsibility. he cofounded one of the bigges
of veterans who are entitled to their health care by causing the pentagon possibly to have to reduce or eliminate tricare funding. that's just unconscionable to me. >> host: on the issue of blame that gregory kind of gets into, washington post poll out today asked about a thousand people about where they would assign blame in this sequester issue. 45% assigning it to congressional republicans, 32% to the president, another 13% assigned it equally between the two. about five more minutes of your calls, and we'll be back to the u.s. senate at 2:15 eastern. in california, rodney's on our democrats' line. >> caller: yes. i question the legality of the sequester agreement, because to my understanding sequester is to hold property by judicial authority. the property we're talking about here is the taxpayers' money. since congress has no judicial judicial -- since congress is not a judicial branch of the government with nor do they have judicial power, i don't understand how could they even implement the sequester? >> host: here's a tweet that says the sequester was obama's idea, but it bac
was the police chief in arlington, virginia. that is where the pentagon was. what i learned that day is if this country >> now i wondered in the last decade how many people have to get murdered in a mass murder for it to be enough? i've been wrong time after time after time. i'm a grand pap i have little kids at home. are 20 babies be enough. that's what we're asking for? when was that gun bought? [applause] >> i'm a law enforcement guy too. i had your job in connecticut some years ago. i want to say, nobody in law enforcement ever thinks we're doing enough. nobody ever says we can go home and stop trying to to do better. so as much as we may agree with you that the united states department of justice and local and state police forces are trying to enforce these laws as agress ily as possible. i think you need more resources and you need criminal background checks. so you can know how to keep these weapons, all weapons out of the hands who shouldn't have them, criminals, domestic abusers, the severe mentally ill. would you agree that the criminal background check expansion into priva
. the pentagon budget is expected to be cut to $47 billion over the past month. it is argued that these budget cuts would hurt military readiness. secretary ashton carter, and representatives of each branch of the military have testified. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets this morning to consider the impact of sequestration and a full year of continuing resolution on the department of defense. we welcome the deputy secretary of defense, ashton carter, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey, who is accompanied by with the following friends. robert hale, chief of staff of the army, general ray odierno, vice chief of operations, mark ferguson, and general james amos, chief of staff of the air force general mark welch and chief of the national guard bureau, general frank grabs. i would like to stop by thanking all of you. please convey our thanks to the soldiers, airmen and marines at home and in harms way around the globe. they and their families deserve our utmost support. some members of congress an
essential. i'm proud of the partnerships the state department has formed with the pentagon. america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remain in valuable partners in nearly everything we do. we've spent energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. the un and world bank and nato are still essentials. all of our institutions and relationships check need to be modernized and complemented by new institutions and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and model to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the g-20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition to fight short live pollutants like black carbon. or work with parties where we stood up the first global terrorism forum. we are working with organizations. consider the arab league in libya. even the lower mekong initiative that we created to help reintegrate burma into its neighborhood and try to work across national boundaries on whether dams should or should not be billult. ilt. world, people want to actually show up. a secretary state mig
until today to make these announcements. do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been we listed every major item we are talking about. we said we had to do furloughs. we said there would be cutbacks in readiness. we said unit costs would go up. all the same things. what we didn't do with a detailed budget planning and i don't regret that. we wouldn't have known the effects of the continuing resolution. we wouldn't have known that congress is going to change the size and the. moreover, we would have incurred the productivity and we would v done it six months ago, so i don't regret not doing that. i think we did sound the alarm in every way we could. >> i am wondering what kind of contract you are having with the white house and with congress there is going to have to be some. so are you trying to offer any solutions? also, i am wondering, what other things would you be doing right now if you were not spending all your time on this sequester. >> spending time with my wife -- i think i am hot the right person to answer. we are responsible for providing the nation's securi
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)